ferretman:Successfully self employed, could hire but taxes on small businesses is 39.6% (Federal - thanks Obama), plus state taxes...also have mortgage costs and utility costs and other employe's costs plus their healthcare.

If increases in wages lead to fewer jobs, could you explain the 50s, when wages grew across the board and there weren't job losses? Also covers the 60s.

HeartBurnKid:SomeAmerican: The question isn't "how much would I need to raise McDonald's prices in order to increase wages".

The question is "what date are McDonald's workers going to be replaced with robots".

The technology is there today, and getting cheaper all the time. The cooking is half automated as it is. Finish the job and use a modified call center AI for the drive through. Then let people enter their own orders on kiosks with a token human or two to help as needed.

The higher you raise wages, the cheaper the tech looks, and the sooner that date is.

You may not realize it, but you've actually made a cogent point. More automation means less jobs are available for the same pool of workers. We're going to have to confront the issue of what happens when you simply don't have enough jobs to go around.

For some people that point has been reached. There are families where no one has worked for three generations. These people are professional consumers. They are issued section 8 housing, food stamps, a cell phone, and, through native wit, come up with enough loose change for cigs, booze, and dope. It is an economy driven by entitlements and the redistribution of wealth. some are able by dint of hard work to escape from this cycle, but poor schools, low expectations, and bad examples conspire to keep them in a permanent underclass. Fall afoul of the law, and you are pretty much cooked - guaranteed to remain a professional consumer. As automation continues to erode the job market that used to beckon those with a strong bank and weak mind, there will be even fewer jobs to go around. What supervisor will miss a truculent, uneducated youth who (might) show up to work a shift at Mickey Dees, when a reliable 'bot is standing by 24-7 to do the work?

WhyteRaven74:ferretman: Successfully self employed, could hire but taxes on small businesses is 39.6% (Federal - thanks Obama), plus state taxes...also have mortgage costs and utility costs and other employe's costs plus their healthcare.

If increases in wages lead to fewer jobs, could you explain the 50s, when wages grew across the board and there weren't job losses? Also covers the 60s.

Far less global competition and fewer products manufactured overseas with strong sales in the US.

tenpoundsofcheese:WhyteRaven74: ferretman: Successfully self employed, could hire but taxes on small businesses is 39.6% (Federal - thanks Obama), plus state taxes...also have mortgage costs and utility costs and other employe's costs plus their healthcare.

If increases in wages lead to fewer jobs, could you explain the 50s, when wages grew across the board and there weren't job losses? Also covers the 60s.

Far less global competition and fewer products manufactured overseas with strong sales in the US.

Charles_Nelson_Reilly:TuteTibiImperes: ferretman: FTA: "In other words, for every dollar McDonald's earns, a little more than 17 cents goes toward the income and benefits of its <a data-cke-saved-href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/04/news/companies/mc donalds_jobs/index.ht m" target="_hplink">more than 500,000 U.S. employees."

Yes...there are no other costs besides employee pay and benefits. What the student hasn't taken into account, if minimum wage was doubled, the rising costs associated with the suppliers, the ones who manufacture the beef patties, chicken nuggets, soda syrup, shake mix, french fries, fish sandwiches, packaging suppliers, etc. These are all manufactured by other companies under contract to, in this case, McDonalds and are typically union-shops (at least on the east coast). If everyone's wages increase the product cost will increase and there will be less jobs.

More people earning more money will allow them to spend more in their local economies supporting other businesses that will then earn more profits and be able to expand hiring more employees and creating more jobs.

That argument is as full of magic and pixie dust as trickle-down economics.

Thornton Melon: Oh, you left out a bunch of stuff.Dr. Phillip Barbay: Oh really? Like what for instance?Thornton Melon: First of all you're going to have to grease the local politicians for the sudden zoning problems that always come up. Then there's the kickbacks to the carpenters, and if you plan on using any cement in this building I'm sure the teamsters would like to have a little chat with ya, and that'll cost ya. Oh and don't forget a little something for the building inspectors. Then there's long term costs such as waste disposal. I don't know if you're familiar with who runs that business but I assure you it's not the boyscouts.Dr. Phillip Barbay: That will be quite enough, Mr. Melon! Maybe bribes, kickbacks and Mafia payoffs are how YOU do business! But they are NOT part of the legitimate business world! And they are certainly not part of anything I am doing in this class. Do I make myself clear, Mr. Melon!

/worked at McDonalds when minimum wage was less than $4, and a Big Mac was about $2//I don't want to live in a world with a $7 BigMac.

leadmetal:Micky D's is a low margin, high volume business. They cannot lose volume. So if you want to increase labor costs then there will be less beef in the patties, the bun will be made with more cheap chemicals, more stuff will be premade in factories and warmed at the location to drive down the number of people needed to be working. They'll cut margins too so long as it is less of a hit than raising the price. Anything to take that cost back out and keep that Big Mac at the price in numerical dollars people are willing to pay.

And yet, the price of a BigMac continues to increase. In 25 years, it has MORE than doubled, though minimum wage has gone from 3.85 to 7.50 (less than double).

Even with inflation, it is clear that despite cutting margins (?), the price is increasing, though presumably volume has not dropped.

WhyteRaven74:If increases in wages lead to fewer jobs, could you explain the 50s, when wages grew across the board and there weren't job losses? Also covers the 60s.

I'm just throwing this out there off the top of my head, but as far as I know, that was organic wage growth driven by actual demand, not an artificial price floor for labor set by policy. In other words, it didn't lead to job losses because businesses actually needed the work done badly enough that they were willing to pay that much for it.

Whether or not that's true of someone who is primarily tasked with ferrying frozen potatoes to hot oil is up in the air.

TuteTibiImperes:ferretman: FTA: "In other words, for every dollar McDonald's earns, a little more than 17 cents goes toward the income and benefits of its more than 500,000 U.S. employees."

More people earning more money will allow them to spend more in their local economies supporting other businesses that will then earn more profits and be able to expand hiring more employees and creating more jobs.

Not so. As the price rises, the demand decreases, and the facility responds with layoffs. More unemployed people results in fewer poor people being able to buy the product, thus yet another drop in sales, resulting in a second round of layoffs ad infinitum. In the end, say, two months later, everybody on earth will be unemployed and starving to death as the last restaurant closes. Mankind will go extinct, nature will be fully restored to pristine condition, and two horny apes in Africa will restart everything.

DON.MAC:How about $15 minimum over the supply chain?The minimum wage in Australia is about $15/hr and a big mac meal costs about $8.15 for a medium (small drink, small fries in US). The version of Burger King won't give you much for $9 and KFC lunch box (chicken sandwich or two pieces, fries, small mashed potato and a can of soft drink) is $10 even.

So crap food is more expensive, which means people eat less of it. I don't see a problem here.

If increases in wages lead to fewer jobs, could you explain the 50s, when wages grew across the board and there weren't job losses? Also covers the 60s.

Far less global competition and fewer products manufactured overseas with strong sales in the US.

I think I remember something about a war too.

Odd that people don't understand the 50's and 60's.The US had geared up a huge manufacturing machine due to the war and with many other countries in shambles or relatively embryonic in development (China, India), the US was the place for capital to be deployed.

HoneyDog:Are the McDonald's in question corporate stores or franchises. It might make a huge difference if you demand the franchise owner to double the wages.You are the third person to mention that fact.

ferretman:FTA: "In other words, for every dollar McDonald's earns, a little more than 17 cents goes toward the income and benefits of its <a data-cke-saved-href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/04/news/companies/mc donalds_jobs/index.ht m" target="_hplink">more than 500,000 U.S. employees."

Yes...there are no other costs besides employee pay and benefits. What the student hasn't taken into account, if minimum wage was doubled, the rising costs associated with the suppliers, the ones who manufacture the beef patties, chicken nuggets, soda syrup, shake mix, french fries, fish sandwiches, packaging suppliers, etc. These are all manufactured by other companies under contract to, in this case, McDonalds and are typically union-shops (at least on the east coast). If everyone's wages increase the product cost will increase and there will be less jobs.

Well, I am guessing the distributors already pay their employees more than 7.25, and even if they do, they are under no obligation to follow McDonald's lead. Few things

1) Could likely meet somewhere in the middle, say 11-12 buchs2) the cost doesn't have to be passed directly to customers. Can take it from the dividend payout, or3) slightly reduce the bonus packages for executives

I know #3 is an impossibility. I am guessing those executives are bona-fide psychopaths that wouldn't dream of reducing their compensation for any reason.

WhyteRaven74:ferretman: Successfully self employed, could hire but taxes on small businesses is 39.6% (Federal - thanks Obama), plus state taxes...also have mortgage costs and utility costs and other employe's costs plus their healthcare.

If increases in wages lead to fewer jobs, could you explain the 50s, when wages grew across the board and there weren't job losses? Also covers the 60s.

Europe and Japan were bombed to oblivion, thus making the US. The only game in town in terms of industrialization?

bojon:HoneyDog: Are the McDonald's in question corporate stores or franchises. It might make a huge difference if you demand the franchise owner to double the wages.You are the third person to mention that fact.

It probably won't make a huge difference to the customer. McD's strives to provide its errrr......diners with a consistent experience, and usually manages to pull it off even though that experience may be sub-prime compared to other fast food options. If the corporate store is forced to pay a labour surcharge, the McDonalds end-user will not be likely to pay a premium to provide workers at the corporate store a salary supplement. they will gravitate to the lower cost option of the franchise

Pumpernickel bread:ferretman: FTA: "In other words, for every dollar McDonald's earns, a little more than 17 cents goes toward the income and benefits of its <a data-cke-saved-href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/04/news/companies/mc donalds_jobs/index.ht m" target="_hplink">more than 500,000 U.S. employees."

Yes...there are no other costs besides employee pay and benefits. What the student hasn't taken into account, if minimum wage was doubled, the rising costs associated with the suppliers, the ones who manufacture the beef patties, chicken nuggets, soda syrup, shake mix, french fries, fish sandwiches, packaging suppliers, etc. These are all manufactured by other companies under contract to, in this case, McDonalds and are typically union-shops (at least on the east coast). If everyone's wages increase the product cost will increase and there will be less jobs.

Well, I am guessing the distributors already pay their employees more than 7.25, and even if they do, they are under no obligation to follow McDonald's lead.

Nor

are their employees obligated to stay once they realize they can work at McDonalds for $15/hour and have an easier job than they have now (and free fries too!)

Fusilier:HeartBurnKid: SomeAmerican: The question isn't "how much would I need to raise McDonald's prices in order to increase wages".

The question is "what date are McDonald's workers going to be replaced with robots".

The technology is there today, and getting cheaper all the time. The cooking is half automated as it is. Finish the job and use a modified call center AI for the drive through. Then let people enter their own orders on kiosks with a token human or two to help as needed.

The higher you raise wages, the cheaper the tech looks, and the sooner that date is.

You may not realize it, but you've actually made a cogent point. More automation means less jobs are available for the same pool of workers. We're going to have to confront the issue of what happens when you simply don't have enough jobs to go around.

For some people that point has been reached. There are families where no one has worked for three generations. These people are professional consumers. They are issued section 8 housing, food stamps, a cell phone, and, through native wit, come up with enough loose change for cigs, booze, and dope. It is an economy driven by entitlements and the redistribution of wealth. some are able by dint of hard work to escape from this cycle, but poor schools, low expectations, and bad examples conspire to keep them in a permanent underclass. Fall afoul of the law, and you are pretty much cooked - guaranteed to remain a professional consumer. As automation continues to erode the job market that used to beckon those with a strong bank and weak mind, there will be even fewer jobs to go around. What supervisor will miss a truculent, uneducated youth who (might) show up to work a shift at Mickey Dees, when a reliable 'bot is standing by 24-7 to do the work?

You've never worked around technology, have you? Here's a hint: computers go down too. BTW, please remind me why that supervisor is employed? Unless robots need management. I'm guessing that supervisor will soon be joining that truculent uneducated youth on the unemployment line.

/worked at McDonalds when minimum wage was less than $4, and a Big Mac was about $2//I don't want to live in a world with a $7 BigMac.

leadmetal: Micky D's is a low margin, high volume business. They cannot lose volume. So if you want to increase labor costs then there will be less beef in the patties, the bun will be made with more cheap chemicals, more stuff will be premade in factories and warmed at the location to drive down the number of people needed to be working. They'll cut margins too so long as it is less of a hit than raising the price. Anything to take that cost back out and keep that Big Mac at the price in numerical dollars people are willing to pay.

And yet, the price of a BigMac continues to increase. In 25 years, it has MORE than doubled, though minimum wage has gone from 3.85 to 7.50 (less than double).[cwpub.com image 257x297]

Even with inflation, it is clear that despite cutting margins (?), the price is increasing, though presumably volume has not dropped.

1) every one of those price increases likely showed a blip downward in same store sales which probably recovered eventually as the market leveled out and everyone had been forced into price increases.2) Correct for expansion into new markets. I neglected to make this point, declining margins can be compensated for by expansion into new markets to increase volume.

The last thing any decently run business does is increase the price on the shelf or menu. That's the last resort. Also nobody wants to be the first to raise prices. Customers will go elsewhere.

Again, if people were willing to pay $4.67, that would be the menu board price right now and MD's would be pocketing that 68 cents. The fact it is $3.99 means people aren't willing to pay more. MD's isn't run by idiots who don't understand this sort thing. They've done their research and know they have to keep that price under four bucks right now.

They don't need to raise prices at all. Pay the people actually doing work, cut the lazy and completely pointless "executives" out of the picture. Someone whose entire job consists of worthless meetings, moronic buzzwords, and blowjobs from the secretary doesn't deserve any money at all, much less 200x what an actual worker makes. I bet they'd be surprised at how much money there is to spare without paying for private jets, houses large enough to bed an entire city's homeless population, fleets of "Look at me I'm a douchebag" cars, and bonus packages.

Alexei Novikov:They don't need to raise prices at all. Pay the people actually doing work, cut the lazy and completely pointless "executives" out of the picture. Someone whose entire job consists of worthless meetings, moronic buzzwords, and blowjobs from the secretary doesn't deserve any money at all, much less 200x what an actual worker makes. I bet they'd be surprised at how much money there is to spare without paying for private jets, houses large enough to bed an entire city's homeless population, fleets of "Look at me I'm a douchebag" cars, and bonus packages.

pueblonative:Fusilier: HeartBurnKid: SomeAmerican: The question isn't "how much would I need to raise McDonald's prices in order to increase wages".

The question is "what date are McDonald's workers going to be replaced with robots".

The technology is there today, and getting cheaper all the time. The cooking is half automated as it is. Finish the job and use a modified call center AI for the drive through. Then let people enter their own orders on kiosks with a token human or two to help as needed.

The higher you raise wages, the cheaper the tech looks, and the sooner that date is.

You may not realize it, but you've actually made a cogent point. More automation means less jobs are available for the same pool of workers. We're going to have to confront the issue of what happens when you simply don't have enough jobs to go around.

For some people that point has been reached. There are families where no one has worked for three generations. These people are professional consumers. They are issued section 8 housing, food stamps, a cell phone, and, through native wit, come up with enough loose change for cigs, booze, and dope. It is an economy driven by entitlements and the redistribution of wealth. some are able by dint of hard work to escape from this cycle, but poor schools, low expectations, and bad examples conspire to keep them in a permanent underclass. Fall afoul of the law, and you are pretty much cooked - guaranteed to remain a professional consumer. As automation continues to erode the job market that used to beckon those with a strong bank and weak mind, there will be even fewer jobs to go around. What supervisor will miss a truculent, uneducated youth who (might) show up to work a shift at Mickey Dees, when a reliable 'bot is standing by 24-7 to do the work?

Eh, Gramps, you can't rely on those devil boxes that replace workers and steal men's souls.Yeah, i guess that is why automobiles are still assembled the way they were when Henry Ford ran Detroit. Actually, why have a "horseless carriage at all, when reliable old dobbin is just itching to haul your buckboard into town?Here's a hint. even the most automated enterprise needs a few humans. Just not as many as it used to require.

People who need a living wage shouldn't be working at McDonald's, except maybe as a supervisor or manager. These kinds of bottom-tier service jobs are what young teenagers and possibly the most destitute immigrants should be doing. Anyone providing for a family needs to have a real job, and we as a country should be doing whatever it takes to facilitate that, not trying to artificially enforce high wages on jobs that don't merit them.

The reality is, if you forced McDonald's to double its wages, it would simply halve its workforce (or give the same number of people half as many hours) and keep right on truckin'.

GF named my left testicle thundercles:the best way to improve the plight of low wage workers (and all other workers too) is to curtail the supply of labor. I would end all almost all forms of immigration.

Fusilier:Eh, Gramps, you can't rely on those devil boxes that replace workers and steal men's souls.Yeah, i guess that is why automobiles are still assembled the way they were when Henry Ford ran Detroit. Actually, why have a "horseless carriage at all, when reliable old dobbin is just itching to haul your buckboard into town?Here's a hint. even the most automated enterprise needs a few humans. Just not as many as it used to require.

Pleasure slaves. That's the answer.

I'll keep my highly educated, well-endowed wife, and also provide a minimum standard of living to a half dozen illiterate bimbos and two eunuchs drawn from the trailer parks of the realm.

howdoibegin:DerpHerder: ReapTheChaos: Marcus Aurelius: ferretman: FTA: "In other words, for every dollar McDonald's earns, a little more than 17 cents goes toward the income and benefits of its <a data-cke-saved-href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/04/news/companies/mc donalds_jobs/index.ht m" target="_hplink">more than 500,000 U.S. employees."

Yes...there are no other costs besides employee pay and benefits. What the student hasn't taken into account, if minimum wage was doubled, the rising costs associated with the suppliers, the ones who manufacture the beef patties, chicken nuggets, soda syrup, shake mix, french fries, fish sandwiches, packaging suppliers, etc. These are all manufactured by other companies under contract to, in this case, McDonalds and are typically union-shops (at least on the east coast). If everyone's wages increase the product cost will increase and there will be less jobs.

Thank God you are nowhere near reality.

Setting the minimum wage close to the true living minimum wage floats all boats, and the economy grows much more quickly.

While companies like Walmart and McDonald's probably could pay $15 and hour by only raising prices on each item they sell a few cents, most smaller businesses would go bankrupt if they had to pay that much. Not only that, but other people start demanding pay raises as well. People with skills and experience who were making $15-20 an hour before minimum wage went up are going to demand an appropriate raise as well, and by all rights they deserve it.

After a year or two, when all the wage and price increases have finally settled down, the economy will be right back to where it was before, and $15 an hour minimum wage wont buy a damn thing more than it did at $7.25.

Exactly. Price floors and ceilings are just as undesirable as subsidies /welfare. To head anyone off undesirable things are sometimes needed. Most of the people in here fail to grasp a basic concept of elasticity. Things do not operate in a bubble. Even within the bub ...

I missed the part where you proved that you immediately lose X sales if a product costs X amount more. In your own stupid words, "things do not operate in a bubble." You're just modeling the results based on how you're framing your bubble. I don't have to prove it either way, but your economic model is as brokenly simplistic as what you're trying to refute.

Price is elastic. Presenting the laws underwhich these types of economic changes operate is not a "result". This research fails the most basic elements of economics. Im sorry my basic level of anlysis doesn't meet your standards of proof for the bubble you put what I said in. I'm right you are wrong feel free to do the math yourself. I proved exactly what I set out to "your economic model is as brokenly simplistic as what you're trying to refute." This overly simplistic research doesn't even meet the most overly simplistic analysis of someone with only basic economic knowledge. Im glad I didn't have to read any of your stupid opinions on this subject. Its probably best you don't contribute to this discussion.

Debeo Summa Credo:Weaver95: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: But what if the increased cost resulted in a decrease in demand and thus lower sales? They may be able to pay employees more, but they'd have to cut costs somewhere else.

well, given that your average CEO makes 400% more than they're worth....you could start there.

Again, when you start your business, pay the CEO no more than he's worth. With paying only fair wages to everyone, you should be able to offer a quality product at a fair price, crushing the inefficient corporations who waste all their money on executive pay.

You don't own McDonald's. It's none of your farking business what they decide to offer in wages or salary to ANY of their workers.

No, it damn well is our business when companies like McDs (or, far better ex, Walmart) pay such low wages that everyone else's taxes are essentially making up at least some of the difference.

We subsidize these low wages in welfare and food stamps because they arent making a living wage and the corps and their board's rake in record profits.

Shorelinefarker:So crap food is more expensive, which means people eat less of it. I don't see a problem here.

The difference between quality and crap probably remains the same. I would expect a decent burger and fries to then cost somewhere around $AUS 18-20. Provided of course that more experienced/skilled workers don't get screwed and end up being paid the same while the bottom is increased.

But what is a minimum wage anyway?The first minimum wages were created to prevent lower skilled and less experienced workers from competing on price. A minimum wage serves to cut off the lower rungs of the job ladder for them. If they cannot find education, training, something to boost their skills they will be jobless.

The minimum wage also deals with a lack of economic opportunity. This is a natural consequence of corporatist and other economic systems that restrict and regulate markets for the advantage of existing and inside players. People just don't have as many opportunities to go out on their own, find better employment with competitors, or go into new businesses under these conditions.

In the end it's just an arbitrary figure. Why not pay MD's employees $200/hr? Any arbitrary figure is as good as any other. Some people will benefit others will be hurt.

leadmetal:The last thing any decently run business does is increase the price on the shelf or menu. That's the last resort. Also nobody wants to be the first to raise prices. Customers will go elsewhere.

And yet, Almost EVERY SINGLE YEAR, the price of a Big Mac has gone up.

seek3r:No, it damn well is our business when companies like McDs (or, far better ex, Walmart) pay such low wages that everyone else's taxes are essentially making up at least some of the difference.

We subsidize these low wages in welfare and food stamps because they arent making a living wage and the corps and their board's rake in record profits.

I'll point out again, though, that there are several unintended results that are possible, here:

1) The price of labor becomes high enough in these low-value, low-skill positions that they can be automated.2) The price becomes high enough to attract more capable job candidates who supplant the current employees (and potentially worsen the shortage of skilled workers in some fields).3) The labor is simply no longer worth doing and the business model changes or becomes unviable.

There's a plausible argument to be made that the flip side of us subsidizing McDonald's is that they're extending some minimal opportunity to people who would otherwise have no place in the economy whatsoever and would require total public support.

ferretman:FTA: "In other words, for every dollar McDonald's earns, a little more than 17 cents goes toward the income and benefits of its <a data-cke-saved-href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/04/news/companies/mc donalds_jobs/index.ht m" target="_hplink">more than 500,000 U.S. employees."

Yes...there are no other costs besides employee pay and benefits. What the student hasn't taken into account, if minimum wage was doubled, the rising costs associated with the suppliers, the ones who manufacture the beef patties, chicken nuggets, soda syrup, shake mix, french fries, fish sandwiches, packaging suppliers, etc. These are all manufactured by other companies under contract to, in this case, McDonalds and are typically union-shops (at least on the east coast). If everyone's wages increase the product cost will increase and there will be less jobs.

That's why items are the same price at Costco who pays its employees $45k on average versus SAMs Club who pays minimum wage.

Would you go for instead.... you get a percentage of the daily, or monthly, or whatever period you agree to... a percentage of the receipts (after certain expenses), or for certain amount of actual work done?

/When I was just out of high school, I worked at a job that switched from an hourly rate to a piece rate that paid per viable piece I constructed..... My pay almost tripled.